Who knew Jerry Seinfeld was a prophet? Back in 1993, one of the most famous episodes of his show, “Seinfeld,” humorously acknowledged what was then a creeping climate of political correctness. The episode called “The outing” found Jerry and his buddy George Costanza having to very carefully defend their heterosexual relationship. After a college reporter mistakes the two for “a couple,” Jerry and George frantically try to assure him (and everyone else) that they’re not gay, “not that there’s anything wrong with that.” The joke was that, although the guys were afraid of being thought of as gay, they were even more terrified of people thinking they were afraid of being thought of as gay.
Fast forward 16 years to the Miss California debacle. Carrie Prejean was a finalist for Miss USA when she was ambushed by the Political Correctness Gestapo. At the interview with the judges, among the usual light and fluffy softball questions came this bombshell, lobbed by openly gay professional gossip-monger Perez Hilton: “Do you believe every U.S. state should legalize same-sex marriage?” For the sake of clarity, I am including Ms. Prejean’s exact answer, word for word:
“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.”
Let me pause here for another clarification. I’m not a big fan of beauty pageants. There is a fine line between acknowledging physical beauty and setting unrealistic, unhealthy expectations for “normal” women and especially impressionable girls. I don’t know that the pageant culture typically sits on the right side of that line. Having said that, Ms. Prejean’s answer to that inappropriate, unfair question seemed as innocuous as “no” could possibly be. I mean, really, she all but said, “not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
It doesn’t matter, apparently. After an unrelenting, two-month smear campaign, the forces of political correctness have decided that withholding the Ms. USA crown was not punishment enough; they are now taking her Miss California crown as well. Although pageant officials are mumbling some yadda-yadda-yadda about “contractual obligations,” Prejean sealed her fate on April 19 by simply expressing her belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And by admirably refusing to cave in to the tidal wave of outrage and name-calling heaped on her almost non-stop since the moment she spoke.
That Seinfeld episode isn’t so funny anymore. Those of us who disagree with the attempts to redefine marriage and morality—and who have the gall to speak up about it—had better be ready to pay a price. In 2009 America, freedom of speech appears to be progressively selective and enjoyed only by those who think “the right way.”
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. . .
What might have been simpler for you, rather than transcribing Prejean’s response, would have been posting the video, in which her snideness comes across. From watching the video, I got no sense of “not that there’s anything wrong with that.” Likewise, Ms. Prejean showed either a complete lack of knowledge of who Perez Hilton was [the judge who asked the question, an openly gay blogger], or a surprisingly shrewd knowledge that her stance would broker her fame. I would have no idea who she was if it weren’t for her anti-gay marriage response, and neither would most Americans—and she has made her career now, as NOM has been happy to adopt her.
The fact is, legislation that legalizes gay marriage will not interfere with what your church does or says. Most bills that legalize gay marriage contain provisions to allow churches not to recognize gay marriage—it’s about state recognition. What your church has to say about homosexuality is still your church’s business.
I cannot understand why ROCK insists that porn or gay marriage needs to be removed from society. Neither porn nor gay marriage is being imposed on your church. If your church is secure in what it teaches, it should have no need to remove “sinful” influences. The world will always be worldly, yes?
Two more things: I wholeheartedly agree with you about the nature of beauty pageants [do not forget Prejean's opportunism, having posed topless, with her breast implants]. Also, I do not believe everything need be politically correct—but everything need not be correct according to your values either. Simply do not partake in those parts of the culture you disapprove of, and talk to your loved ones about it.
There is no reason or right to remove what you disapprove of from the culture. [Plainly, I am speaking both about gay rights and the larger issue of porn vis-a-vis ROCK.]
jenlillith,
Thanks for writing. You covered a lot of ground, but I’m going to focus mainly on Carrie Prejean for now. I have watched the video several times, and just watched it again. “Snideness” is just not applicable. What I see is a young woman responding with class and dignity to a complete ambush from a judge with a political agenda. Notice the host whispering to Prejean, “Are you afraid?” after he announces that the question comes from Hilton, and listen to Hilton loudly say, “You should be!” right before asking it.
Prejean does raise her voice at one point and talk faster, but that’s almost certainly a reaction to the enthusiastic booing she was getting.
It’s more than a stretch to suggest that somehow this whole debacle is part of a master plan concocted by the diabolically clever Miss California to advance her own career. She was Miss California. She had almost reached the pinnacle of her personal master plan on April 19. If she had elevated her own career plan above her beliefs, she would have rolled over and stammered out the official politically correct party line.
Is she my idea of the perfect role model for young girls? No. Topless pics, implants–touche, touche. But the only reason we know everything about Prejean except her SSN is that the minute she broke ranks with the PC establishment she earned her very own character assassination hit squad.
I stand by the main point of my post. Prejean lost a pageant and was fired, not because she said homosexuality was wrong, not because she said gays are living in sin, not because she said there’s something wrong with the homosexual lifestyle. She lost a pageant and was fired because she said marriage should be between a man and a woman.
It seems to me that should chill all Americans who cherish freedom of speech, regardless of which side you take on the issue.
Thanks for the reply.
Of course, our opposite stances on Carrie Prejean are going to change our perception of it. Perhaps it is not snideness so much as sanctimony. Her answer went from it being a state’s rights issue—a stance that, in the infamous followup video, Hilton says he endorses—into an issue of how she was raised in “her” country. Well, gay people share her country. Saying “no offense” doesn’t really soften what she means.
I also don’t think she had a grand master plan. I do think that the switch in answer—going from state’s rights to her personal morality to Perez Hilton [again, a well-known openly gay gossip blogger]—indicates that she realized halfway through that it might get her some notice if she didn’t say the typical PC answer. It certainly worked.
Certainly Perez Hilton asked her a loaded question. Perhaps that’s unfair, but then again, being judged by such unrealistic beauty standards that one must get implants is unfair. [Can you tell how little I think of pageants?] The person with the real last laugh in all this is Donald Trump, owner of the Miss USA competition—what a heap of free publicity. By the way, he says that the reason he fired her—after publicly defending her—was breach of contract.
What you’re missing is that saying marriage “should be between a man and a woman” smacks of all the things she did not directly say. Why should marriage only be between man and woman if being gay/a gay lifestyle is acceptable? I’m not the only person who found her sanctimonious—the media didn’t pick up on her because they’re particularly left, but because it’s a good sensationalistic story and Prejean’s hypocrisy was easy to expose.
Also, I see no infringement upon freedom of speech. People who disagree with Prejean are allowed to say their piece, too. Nothing in the Bill of Rights says you have freedom from responsibility for what you say.
Jenlillith,
Isn’t it fair to say that by definition, since you disagree with Prejean’s position on marriage, you would have found her answer to be sanctimonious no matter how she delivered it? Can you give me a version of her answer that you would have approved?
The problem is, we’ve come to a place where it’s acceptable, even customary, to presume to know the heart and motives of a person/group who takes a position other than “gay ‘marriage’ is great!” It’s as predictable as sunrise: If you say that marriage should remain exclusively between a man and a woman, you’re a bigoted, hateful homophobe. Those words simply don’t describe most people who oppose gay “marriage.”
There is no substance to the charge of Prejean’s “hypocrisy.” If it is revealed that Prejean sneaked off to get married to her girlfriend in Vermont—okay, busted. But if you’re saying that making mistakes precludes you from stating your opinion, then we’d better all shut up.
As for the alleged “breach of contract” (which apparently included a Playboy shoot and mea culpa’s to gay-rights groups) that’s planted firmly in he-said, she-said territory for now. You believe he, I believe she. Stalemate.
I do agree with your last statement, but it should cut both ways. And, “being responsible for what you say” shouldn’t mean getting fired for it.
She could have answered it in several ways that wouldn’t have peeved me [and others!] so. She might have stuck with her original state’s rights focus, or mentioned civil unions [apparently, many opponents of gay marriage have a problem with the gay union being called a marriage]. Or chalked it up to her religion, rather than spin it as a sort of universal American value.
Every reason I’ve heard against gay marriage from straight people has been something to do with religion or bigotry. This grates people like me because America is not a theocracy, nor is it static. Again, while some gay people may want their churches to recognize gay marriage, the struggle for gay marriage is for legal recognition. What your church teaches is its own business, but the government is supposed to serve all its citizens. As far as I—and people who bristle at those who oppose gay marriage—can tell, there is no persuasive non-religious or non-homophobic argument against gay marriage. Believe me, I’ve looked.
Please don’t take that as me calling you a bigoted, hateful homophobe. Your intentions are obviously good. I simply think that religious views are just that—religious, and those of us who are not religious should not be and are not supposed to be beholden to them.
If Prejean has ever admitted such things were “mistakes,” I have yet to see it. She has lied and said that all those topless shots were pictures the photographer snuck, which is plainly untrue. I’m not calling her a hypocrite because she’s made a “mistake” [not that I actually have a problem with her posing topless, or even having implants]. She’s a hypocrite because she would happily have Christian sexual mores imposed on a certain group of people, while not exactly following all the proscriptions herself. By Christian sexual mores, I mean the whole gambit.
In all this, I have yet to see Prejean silenced—only criticized and shown for who she is, which is not the same thing. And, the Bill of Rights doesn’t extend into private companies. If you were to pepper your conversations with coworkers with expletives and tell dirty jokes about coworkers, your boss would be remiss if he didn’t fire you. If I taught at a Christian school and told my students the Bible was untrue, I should be fired. And on and on and on.
Jenlillith,
I’m still confused about your theory regarding Prejean’s speech: On the one hand you say you would have preferred that she reference a religious reason over what she actually said, but then you go on to dismiss the religious case for marriage. I’ll reiterate again that first, you wouldn’t have been happy with anything she had said as long as it was a “no” to gay marriage. And second, the whole point here is that she was hit with an explosively political question in what is traditionally a fru-fru, apolitical environment: a beauty pageant. I think she did the best she could in an extremely uncomfortable situation.
One last thing re: Prejean’s alleged hypocrisy. Gandhi said, “The best thing about Christianity is Jesus Christ. The worst thing about Christianity is the Christians.” He’s absolutely right. I think I’ve already established that I do not consider Prejean an excellent role model. To your point, even if there was some tomfoolery involved with the pics, she needs to apologize for them, post-haste. The thing is, people who speak out on moral issues (or even issues with moral undertones or implications) will always have skeletons in their closets because they’re human (I would use the term “sinners”). Those skeletons, depending on their size, might harm the credibility of the speaker but they don’t change anything about the validity of their position.
I’d like to take a crack at your suggestion that there is no compelling non-religious argument against same-sex marriage. Although I am by no means an expert on the subject, I have read quite a bit of material on it. I have attached a piece by Margaret Somerville (not sure I’m doing this hyperlink thing right, so here’s the text:http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf). It is not the definitive say on the topic and it does not list every point I’ve ever heard made, but I think it’s a well-reasoned, thoughtful examination of the issue. By sharing it my goal is not to convince you that I’m right and you’re wrong. The goal is just to make the point that the arguments against same-sex marriage are not limited to “religion or bigotry.”
I want to thank you for your articulate and civil approach to your challenges. So often comment threads (especially on this topic) devolve into scorched-earth shouting matches or escalating insultathons. Socrates said the essential ingredients for any dialogue are intelligence, candor, and good will. I appreciate it when people bring all three to the table.
Had Prejean said, “Because I am a Christian, I oppose gay marriage,” it would have been a religious stance. When she said, “In my country, in my family,” she turned the stance against gay marriage into an American or a family value. Quite simply, plenty of Americans and family people would disagree. I may not have been “happy” with any stance opposing gay marriage, but I prefer an honest one. Social conservatives who act as though they have a monopoly on morality do their cause a great disservice with that attitude.
The problem with skeletons—with our private “sinfulness”—is that they are unacknowledged, not that they exist. Everyone has flaws or has made mistakes, and pretending otherwise is a mistake, too. Prejean has played the innocent victim for this whole episode. People on right and left have defended her, as well [many feminists decried the criticisms as "slut-shaming"]. I just don’t happen to be one of them, since I think one is responsible for what one says and she’s now far more famous [and connected] than she would have been had she given the PC answer.
At any rate, there’s more to gay marriage than Carrie Prejean. I appreciate the link, and read all of Somerville’s article. Funnily enough, when I was typing my previous reply, I almost wrote, “religion, tradition, or bigotry”—wish I had, now. While I appreciate that Somerville truly seems not to want to discriminate, I find some of her reasoning to be contrived. She ignores that marriage has evolved and continues to be an evolving institution [other than a mention of the former illegality of interracial marriages], and that within a large national society, there is probably not a consensus on what marriage is for. Likewise her arguments about gay families were unconvincing [the kindest and most succinct way I can put it]. Her overall thesis, that the reproductive symbolism of marriage must be preserved, overlooks the dynamic and diverse nature of humanity. [I'd do a point-by-point rebuttal, but no one wants to read a comment that long!]
I appreciate the compliment and return it. More than anything I think people with different views need to converse wth each other.